Point out the difference if you can, Eurogreen. The start of this debate was O's post about the barbarians of religion storming the gates, which somehow seems to be the same as nazism, although he doesn't explain how. "Islamofascism" here we come. Do you really expect a respectful debate if you support depicting a personality that people revere as a yellow alien with crazy eyes? Why this obsession with the religion of brown-skinned immigrants who are struggling with prejudice and poverty anyway? Can't Charlie Hebdo for once attack the rich and powerful and risk retaliation? Needless provocation indeed.

The start of this debate was O's post about the barbarians of religion storming the gates

Then I'll leave you to debate that subject with him. It's not my thesis, nor is it Charlie Hebdo's.

Why this obsession with the religion of brown-skinned immigrants who are struggling with prejudice and poverty anyway?

Why this obsession with skin colour? The implied "people who criticize Islam are racist" non-sequitur does not pass muster as an argument here.

Can't Charlie Hebdo for once attack the rich and powerful and risk retaliation?

They do it every week. Why do you pretend not to know that? The implied argument that they have attacked the poor and powerless is, of course, nonsense (or would at least require that you provide some evidence to back it up).

Why this obsession with skin colour? The implied "people who criticize Islam are racist" non-sequitur does not pass muster as an argument here

Oh yes. You can't separate this anti-Muslim stuff from the fact that almost all European Muslims are immigrants or the children and grandchildren of immigrants. They are darker than the rest of us and that's how we can easily recognise them. They are The Other and that makes them a target.

It is certainly the case that the idiosyncrasies of oppressed minority religions should be treated with greater forbearance than the idiosyncrasies of oppressive majority religions. But willingness to excuse any barbarism in the name of such forbearance is a disservice both to secular civilization (but I repeat myself) and to progressive members of the religion in question.

In particular, a blanket demand that secular society observes or enforces your taboos is just flat up unacceptable. In a democracy, priests do not get to write the law.

If you want to take a particular violation of a religious taboo to task for being racist, then take it to task on its merits. But being a violation of a taboo of an oppressed minority is not itself sufficient to make that case.

But willingness to excuse any barbarism in the name of such forbearance is a disservice both to secular civilization (but I repeat myself) and to progressive members of the religion in question.

???

Which barbarism? (And which secular civilization while you are at it?) Who is excusing any barbarism? There is no reaction from the persecuted minority in question that I am aware of. Does ignoring the racist provocations of a magazine that obviously wants to sell more copies by appealing to fears of "political Islam" already count as barbarism?

When Muslims protested against denigrations of their religion, these protests were condemned as barbarianism. When they don't react and consequently the sales of that rubbish magazine don't rise, it's barbarianism too. Is there anything Muslims can do that would find your approval, apart from giving up their religion?

The imposition of religious taboos on the rest of society is barbarism. Some forbearance is merited when the religion in question is a disenfranchised minority religion. But such forbearance is a privilege, not a right, and it should not be unlimited.

When they don't react and consequently the sales of that rubbish magazine don't rise,

I guess arson does not count as a reaction. Oh, well.

Is there anything Muslims can do that would find your approval, apart from giving up their religion?

The same thing all religious people can do: Keep it to themselves. I'm not obligated to respect your religion. I might respect it on my own initiative if I happen to find it respectable, but the odds of that diminish sharply every time one of its adherents throws an infantile temper tantrum.

For a moment I toyed with responding by denigrating and dehumanising a personality you admire until you feel the pain. I am sure that I could find one. It is not what I would do and what I would enjoy, though. I don't understand this wish to make Muslims (or anyone else) suffer. How you can support that is beyond me.

Name someone who is being mocked for their identity in the context of this discussion.

None of my Muslim friends are being mocked for their identity if I mock Mohammed. None of my Christian friends are being mocked if I mock Jesus. And if you mock Elvis and I love Elvis, I'm not being mocked for my identity. If I get upset about it, then I should lighten up. I have noted that some people on this site tend to get nasty and personal if their political heroes get mocked. This may sometimes be amusing but usually it's tiresome.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II

My Muslim friends tend to take attacks on their religion (where mocking Mohammed really isn't encouraged, to put it mildly) as attacks on themselves. Being a member of the majority religion I am very relaxed, but if I lived somewhere where Christians are a persecuted minority, I would probably be rather thin-skinned and see attacks of my religion as attacks on my identity too.

And we have had at least one ET contributor leave the blog because he perceived an attack on the Pope's political positions as a personal attack on him (the contributor).

At some level you have to accept that if you believe a topic is fair game in political discussion and somebody else is personally offended, the problem is not with the political discussion. At least that appears to be a ground rule of this here forum: no subject matters are out of order (there are exceptions: we have on occasion banned openly antisemitic content and anything that could lead to legal liability for the blog itself, such as libel or copyright violation).

Personally, I find that a lot of the Mohammed cartoon issue involves people in a politically dominant group gratuitously offending people in a minority group. I fail to see what above-board political argument is advanced by publishing a slew of cartoons that the publishers know will cause offence, and with the deliberate aim of causing offence.

It's a bit like the joke about political freedom in the USSR:

American: "The proof that we have freedom of speech in the USA is that we can march in front of the White House to protest US policy"
Russian: "We have freedom of speech in the USSR as well, the proof is that we can march in front of the American Embassy to protest US policy"

Similarly, the Danish cartoonists enjoy press freedom: the proof is that they can mock the religion of foreigners.

At some level you have to accept that if you believe a topic is fair game in political discussion and somebody else is personally offended, the problem is not with the political discussion. At least that appears to be a ground rule of this here forum: no subject matters are out of order (there are exceptions: we have on occasion banned openly antisemitic content and anything that could lead to legal liability for the blog itself, such as libel or copyright violation).

Personally, I find that a lot of the Mohammed cartoon issue involves people in a politically dominant group gratuitously offending people in a minority group. I fail to see what above-board political argument is advanced by publishing a slew of cartoons that the publishers know will cause offence, and with the deliberate aim of causing offence.

word-perfectly put.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

OTOH is it not legitimate to take an 'acted position' in order to provoke a discussion, or question an audience? In a long line since Lenny Bruce, comedians have questioned the accepted opinions of audiences of all types. These are 'acted positions' (Frank Boyle, Al Murray et al of today, as examples). These positions are aimed at a specific audience, not at the people who suffer the intolerance and bigotry.

i think it's valid, in fact it's very tempting to do so, though it's risky as many readers may not be clued in to what you are doing, and thus why.

irony has a similar problem as tools go.

as persuasive tool, it works on the half-convinced, and can backfire. one man's snark is another's canon.

maybe leg-pulling can embarrass people into dropping old attitudes, and it's fun, so... on we toil.

maybe there is a yet higher way, so unequivocal as not even need humour.

very few get there. john cleese doing 'upper class twit' probably persuaded some of the UCTs to dial back some of the more obnoxious of their affectations! once it's established your intention is mostly to get a laugh, you can enjoy more freedom to play those edges.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

The Fool is Lear's Fool (and one could argue, an extension of Lear's psyche). He is authorised to mock Lear. If another character were to mock Lear in the same way, Lear's reaction would be very different.

Other modern "fools" are questioning their audience and its accepted opinions. This is an invaluable exercise, imo. But its effectiveness stems from the fact that they question the culture from within. This is part of a process by which a culture can lose its prejudices and become broader and more tolerant.

Charlie Hebdo, as fools go (and I've been reading it on and off for forty years), has mostly carried out that function of questioning and mocking from within, and imo to sometimes devastating effect. In terms of religion, that means mostly attacking the authoritarian and reactionary positions of the Catholic clergy and, in particular, the Pope. To applause from me.

On the other hand, I don't support their choosing to mock and question the accepted beliefs of Muslims, however authoritarian and reactionary I think those beliefs may be. Such mockery from the outside is not much likely to be effective in bringing about fresh thinking in the Muslim world -- quite apart from the kneejerk tribal defence effect it is sure to have, change in Islamic culture can imo only come about through the effect of challenges from within. This is something I believe will happen (unless the planet kicks us off it before then). But it's the business of Muslims and those brought up in that culture. The "West" doesn't have lessons to hand out to them.

Yet, whether it be Jyllands Posten or Charlie Hebdo that publishes the material, it can only be perceived in the Islamic world as an emanation of the "West". Neither paper is ignorant of this. So the intention seems to me to be other than mocking in order to question and bring about a positive dynamic in the culture. It looks more like defiance, hostile acts born from a civilisation-clash worldview. And that, I dislike as much as I dislike the trolly language of ormondotvos' diary.

So the intention seems to me to be other than mocking in order to question and bring about a positive dynamic in the culture.

so very encouraging to see reasonable attitudes free of prejudice or arrogance. it's up to us to try and mend the scars of centuries, and try to rebring about the peaceful, (and amazingly productive) co-existence that has on occasion occurred between our cultures.

I'm surprised that you, afew, in particular, should characterise the current CH publication as being addressed by Occidentals to international Islam.

The comic of the life of the Prophet was written by French people, Muslim and non-Muslim, for French people, Muslim and non-Muslim.

We (including you and me, afew) live in a society in which a large number of people, French by birth, are of Muslim heritage, whether actively Muslim or not. They are friends, neighbours, colleagues, part of the fabric of society (probably a bit thin on the ground out your way). Islam is not a foreign religion in France. And it is the religion of an underprivileged minority with which CH has always manifested solidarity, to the extent that I'm quite sure that, in their own heads at least, CH do not see themselves satirising Islam from the outside, but as an aspect of a society in which they (and we) are fully part.

I was pretty ambivalent when Charlie Hebdo reprinted the Jyllands Posten drawings (however I have approved of CH's own drawings of Mahomet published on that occasion, and since). That was certainly an edgy editorial decision; and I think the editor, Charb, is right in saying that they put the cart before the horse (there is an element of implicit self-criticism in that).

But, again, I really don't much evidence of geopolitics in any of the editorial decisions of CH. To the extent that they are concerned with reactions outside France, it is with French-speaking North Africa. They have been fervent supporters of the Arab Spring, and highly critical of the rise of political Islam, in Tunisia in particular. Those who organised anti-CH demonstrations are of the Salafist tendency, i.e. the extreme right of the political spectrum of the Arab world (I hope nobody is shocked by that characterisation!)

CH in a fight with the extreme right : it's hardly a novelty.

The impact within France deserves more consideration. Later.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II

On the other hand, maybe you can. I am instantly reminded of Michael Moore's interview of Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. Since my first viewing of that movie, it felt to me like harassment. Sort of like a happy-slappy video.

Then again, as Galbraith said,

In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong.

My point is that there is no clear line between 'truth to power' and 'bullying' without understanding the audience that 'freedom of speech' addresses. I agree that in many, perhaps most, cases it is easy to see which is which (usually because the law is clear). But there are also cases in which the messaging can only be defined by the supposed intent.

I'm not sure what you remember, though: I don't think I debated Truthers on ET after its first year or two, well before you arrived here (ET was founded in 2005); Truthism went into decline like Birthism is now.

Given the extremely heated, improductive debate the topic tended to produce, diaries advocating such CT were declared off-limits in the Editorial Guidelines. In other words, such diaries will be deleted.

There have been no occurrences regarding 9/11. OTOH, a couple of diaries advocating Holocaust Denial have iirc been deleted (blatant falsification of historical facts).

If I searched and remember right, the last debate with Truthers I participated in was the comments of this diary from June 2007 (almost precisely two years after ET's founding). I don't remember anymore exactly when that line was added to the guidelines and with what consequence it was enforced regarding Truther diaries, but there was no talk of banning in that particular diary. At any rate, the dustup involving aircraft engines Migeru must be referring to is this (continued here and here), nine moths earlier, apparently prior to the creation of any guideline.

ET got very turned off one of the participants to the extent that that person's accounts were later closed. One of the few people who've been banned in nearly eight years of this forum. So it really isn't a pleasant memory.

The European Tribune is a left-of-centre community that is devoted primarily but not exclusively to discussions of current events, underlying causes and new ideas in economics, politics, science and society. Users are free to write diaries on any subject they want, as long as these are not

personally offensive,

defamatory,

do not blatantly falsify scientific or historical facts or

advocate theories involving pervasive high-level conspiracies

and to comment on contributions by other users. All views published on this site, without exception, are subject to debate, challenge and criticism by any user (as long as the proprieties of civility and ETiquette are observed). No "authority" - whether secular or religious, contemporary or historical - is considered above critical scrutiny. It is not the task of the editorial team to ensure any "balance" of views.

Proof for the perpetual barbarism of the Muslims in their reactions to "anticlerical" publications is an arson that was committed BEFORE the publication. So whatever Muslims do, it's wrong. There had been protests at earlier publications, and there had been violence at yet other times, during the period of endless publications of humiliations. Now there is no reaction at all and that still isn't good enough for you

You complain that you can't offend Muslims without them getting violent, but when they don't get violent, you still complain about their violence.

Don't you notice that there is no violence in answer to CH's despicable campaign? There is silence. CH is free to publish what rubbish they want in order to vilify Islam. Nobody keeps them from it. What more do you want? You want a reason to complain that [insert terms for religious HUMAN BEINGS that you would never accept if used on you] kept you from speaking up. If it isn't there, you invent it.

The last time Charlie Hebdo published idolatry pictures, it was firebombed. That itself is justification enough to publish idolatry pictures again. There is nothing despicable about that - despicable would be allowing religious thugs to impose their parochial taboos on other people.

You seem to be assuming that the absence of religious thuggery against the paper retroactively invalidates that reasoning. It doesn't - the paper could not know at the time of publication that there would be no religious thuggery in response. Unless you want to demand that papers hire psychic mediums to predict which of their articles will generate a reaction that justifies them.

Finally, I have no obligation to note and praise every instance where no religious thugs performed religious thuggery in response to an offense against their parochial taboos.

You called a violent reaction barbarianism and the absence of violence barbarianism too. Now you introduce the term "religious thuggery". How am I to interpret that? "Religious thuggery" bad, anti-religious thuggery good? Please enlighten me.

I call any attempt to claim special privileges not accorded to vegetarians, cat lovers or chess players barbarism. Violent or not.

Replacing [adherent to the religion du jour] with "a collector of horse porn" is a good litmus test for whether a demand of deference is reasonable or not. "Being a collector of horse porn is not sufficient grounds for the political police to investigate you" is a very reasonable proposition. "Newspapers may not mock horse porn" is not. "Periodicals may not print images of horse porn" is certainly not.

You find horse porn disgusting. Some people presumably hold it as a major point of their sexual identity.

That you find it disgusting is, in fact, the reason it makes a good test for whether you are arguing for a generally applicable human right, or merely a privilege to be extended and withdrawn arbitrarily. It is altogether too cheap to argue that the things you happen to find sacred and wholesome must be protected from jeers and sarcasm. If you're sincere about protection from ridicule being an actual human right, then it must also apply to (otherwise legal) activities that you find repulsive.

I'm not arguing that it's terribly productive, or even particularly smart, tasteful or funny. Nor am I arguing that there are no reasonable arguments against publishing.

What I am arguing is that religious privilege is not a reasonable argument. Because religious privilege is not a valid argument for anything, ever.

Now, if the debate we were having were about how to most effectively get religious people in France to stop demanding special treatment for their religious symbols, then I'd be completely on board with the argument that it's (a) not a high priority problem and (b) not well served by white, middle-class people doing the mocking.

But before we can get to that, we have to firmly establish that demanding such special treatment for religious symbols is not legitimate. And we're obviously not there yet.

What I am arguing is that religious privilege is not a reasonable argument.

Is Katrin (or anyone else in this diary) arguing for religious privilege? I missed a large part of the religion debates over the past year, so I can't be sure; but in this diary, her argument seems to be focused on the majority vs. minority angle, not the religious vs. secular/other religious angle.

if the debate we were having were about how to most effectively get religious people in France to stop demanding special treatment for their religious symbols

Why would we have such a debate? First, I don't see a pressing need in December 2012 to push back against such demands. Second, as far as I'm concerned, people can demand it all they like as long as (1) they don't have the tools of coercion, (2) no official institution grants the demands, and (3) I can voice disagreement publicly.

What I am arguing is that religious privilege is not a reasonable argument. Because religious privilege is not a valid argument for anything, ever

Nobody is arguing "religious privilege". You are inventing that. I am arguing (and consistently arguing so there is no possibility to misunderstand me) that there is a minority that is consistently persecuted and harrassed. The minority is kept in poverty. Laws force the women among them to go naked according to their perception, or else they won't be allowed even to learn. The US get have right to snatch as many Muslims from the streets as they like and desappear them. The populace throws rocks at their houses or businesses. Persons are assaulted, murdered. Mosques and cemeteries get vandalised and torched.

Now Charlie Hebdo is burdening this minority with more humiliation: they deliberately make fun of their religion, for no other purpose: just further humiliation of a minority. And this despicable act has your and Eurogreen's applause.

But nevertheless you found it the right stuff in order to shut up a woman who defends the human rights of a persecuted minority.

There is no human right to not have your religion mocked.

But good try.

Nobody is arguing "religious privilege". You are inventing that. I am arguing (and consistently arguing so there is no possibility to misunderstand me) that there is a minority that is consistently persecuted and harrassed.

The corollary to that position is that dipping a crucifix in shit in public would be perfectly fine with you, since Christianity is not a persecuted minority religion. If that is in fact what you are arguing, then your position has more merit than I gave you credit for.

But that's not the impression I got.

I also think you're granting far too much weight to what the shrillest fundamentalist preachers are preaching (I don't accept that shrill fundamentalist preachers can speak for their laity, for the same reason I don't accept that the Pope can speak for Catholics). But I will grant that my perception of this discrepancy is based on the chronology of the Danish cartoon dustup, rather than reliable polling.

(The Danish cartoons were met with a Gaelic shrug by the overwhelming majority of Danish Muslims. They only became an issue when a handful of fundamentalist imams -who are even less representative of Danish Muslims than the Pope is of Catholics- went on a propaganda tour to a number of Arab countries with a doctored portfolio. That doctored portfolio included pictures they had found elsewhere, and a number of those pictures were actually offensive even to me. Cue major international incident.)

The last time Charlie Hebdo published idolatry pictures, it was firebombed. That itself is justification enough to publish idolatry pictures again.

That's a strange logic. Charlie Hebdo needlessly but deliberately offended millions of people, including a few thousand nutcases, among whom predictably one or two did a violent act. So a full year later, Charlie Hebdo again needlessly but deliberately offended millions of people. How does that make sense as a reaction? They could have mocked the teachings a Salafi cleric motivating the attackers.

That's exactly the framing which I strongly dispute. I don't particularly like O's framing, but I am trying to point out, over and over, that Charlie Hebdo is not anti-Muslim. It had a couple of decades of credentials as an anti-clerical (i.e. in the French context, anti-Catholic) rag before the question of Islam in France even became fashionable. Since its foundation in the 1960s, it has always been anarcho-leftist, more recently with strong ecologist tendencies. It doesn't have a well-defined political position, it depends on the contributors.

If you and Katrin want to have an anti-Muslim debate, please don't do it in response to my posts. I will not be shouted down by presumed (and entirely imaginary) association with racists, fascists or whatever.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II

have made posts which are borderline Godwin : Katrin attempted to conflate Charlie Hebdo with anti-Muslim hate sites; Colman implied that this is an anti-Muslim debate. Typically these are tactics designed to close down a debate. I will not be shamed into silence because I have nothing to be ashamed of. I will respond to both if they make substantive points.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II

A large section of this debate, globally*, is anti-muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-darkie. Look at the people involved in it for crap's sake. How many of them would you want to be allied with? How many of them are truly anti-clerical when the clerics are wearing dog collars? Unless you're very careful indeed you simply end up bolstering forces we really don't want to support. It doesn't seem that Charlie Hebdo was careful enough if it's being used in the way this diary used it. That's what I meant.

Also, Godwin, Godwin, GODWIN!

[* I'm sure that all the French voices involved are organically certified anti-clericists without the slightest whiff of racism or anti-immigrant dog whistling. France is like that, apparently.]

is "there are reactionary forces who don't like darkies and don't like Muslims. Therefore, anything which can be construed as critical of Islam should be self-censored by progressives". I can understand that argument, but I can't respect it.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II

You do not understand the argument if you are conflating the granting of the right for expression and approval. Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish offending bullshit. But what is their point? Why does it feel the need to be critical of Islam, why now, and why in this form? Don't tell me that a picture book designed to be taken as blasphemous is just "anything which can be construed as critical of Islam".

You find nothing wrong in offending Muslims in order to make a point against some Muslims, but you cry Godwin when I put your revered Charlie Hebdo into the same box as Islamophobian hate sites. Funny that.